Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 01:58 PM
Original message
U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf
Source: New York Times

By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: January 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of a series of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran’s leadership, when he is warning that his diplomatic outreach will now be combined with the “consequences,” as he put it in the State of the Union address, of the country’s continued defiance on its nuclear program. The administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which Western nations say controls the military side of the nuclear program.

As part of that effort, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted. The Senate, meanwhile, last week unanimously approved a resolution authorizing sanctions that include cutting off gasoline to Iran, a step Mr. Obama’s aides say he is reluctant to take.

The deployments are partly intended to address American concerns about possible retaliation for whatever sanctions are imposed. The administration is also trying to demonstrate to Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — which included a rare public discussion by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appear to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran. By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup rather than offensive weaponry, the administration was trying to contain any Iranian threat without provoking a sharp response from Tehran.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/middleeast/31missile.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not liking the beat of these drums again.
We have no concrete facts to my knowledge that Iran is planning on attacking anyone with missles in the ME. Unless we or Israel are planning on provoking them to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Personally, I favor exporting missile defense to the Middle Eastern nations that ask for it
We're not stepping on their toes by helping them meet this need and we're heading off potential Iranian efforts to further expand their influence in the region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. this is war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Does Admiral Blair have anything to do with this? He who might be connected to
the on campus Intelligence recruiting sites like that ones that some of the stupid-four were involved with? Diversion?????

http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/02/has-admiral-blair-double-crossed-a-second-president/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think this means that Israel is about to take out Iran's nuke facilities.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. maybe
maybe not

“Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

Setting ultimatums and threatening more sanctions will probably piss them off, but Iran is going to do what they want regardless what the rest of the worlds thinks - that much is pretty clear by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. ummm - if Iran was building up missile capabilities near North America's coasts
.
.
.

that would be considered OFFENSE, no?

:freak:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PacerLJ35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. If it was with offensive ballistic missiles, sure...but these aren't.
These are surface to air missiles used for defensive means. They don't have the capability to actually strike Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Good point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiberius Donating Member (798 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. No, it really wasn't a good point
If the Iranians were building up a huge stockpile of bottle rockets, or firecrackers, or sparklers off our coast... we would rally round the flag.

That our missiles are defensive in nature means nothing, because it could mean that we're girding our allies for a counterattack to a possible aggression.

Not that we shouldn't do that (Israel could strike without our permission) but to imply that Iran should not raise an eyebrow at this is a bit... naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PacerLJ35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. We have Russian offensive bombers flying off our coasts often...nothing happens
What's your point? Really...

The fact that we have ships with the capability to shoot down short and medium-range tactical ballistic missiles sailing in international waters, to prevent Iran from trying to ignite a very unstable area (ie, attack Israel, etc), is in no way directly threatening them.

Your assertion is that we'd be beating our war drums and putting on war paint even if they had non-offensive equipment in international waters off our coasts. Russia routinely flies Tu-95 bombers around our coasts...we just keep an eye on them. Other nations that might not be friendly (ie, China) have sailed their own ships close to US mainland and territory coasts...again, no one is threatening to attack anyone.

Keeping some measure to zap Iran's ballistic missiles out of the air and thus preventing WW III from breaking out in the middle east is probably a smart idea. Iran is only pissed because it blunts their ability to attack someone (hell, someone...we all know who that would be...Israel...and if Israel got attacked by Iran, all hell would break loose).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiberius Donating Member (798 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I agree that we should do this...
But make no mistake, these measures are not to defend against an Iranian first strike - they are to defend against their counterattack.

If the area ignites, or WWIII breaks out as you suggest it might - it will be us or Israel who attacks first. The Iranians aren't about to start lobbing missiles first and give us an excuse to level their country.

No matter how crazy they might seem, they aren't suicidal.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. with whose money, we will never know
but that's ok, because the american tax payers(the poor and middle class) will pay for it all, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. More the middle class, really.
The federal government doesn't tend to tax the poor much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. With the arms sale to Taiwan, I'd expect that China won't agree to anything against Iran
Maybe there will even be an old-fashioned Security Council veto from China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YouTakeTheSkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. My guess? There was going to be one anyway, so we figured what the hell. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-30-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. The border looks peaceful, but Hizbollah and Israel are preparing for war
Robert Fisk: The tree-lined bunkers that could change the face of the Middle East

/... http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-treelined-bunkers-that-could-change-the-face-of-the-middle-east-1874228.html

It looks like a hop, skip and a jump. There's the first electrified fence, then the dirt strip to identify footprints, then the tarmac road, then one more electrified fence, and then acres and acres of trees. Orchards rather than tanks. Galilee spreads beyond, soft and moist and dark green in the winter afternoon – a peaceful Israel, you might think. And a peaceful Lebanon to the north, tobacco plantations amid the stony hills, just an occasional UN armoured vehicle to keep you on your toes. "Major Pardin says you cannot take pictures," a Malaysian UN soldier tells me. Then a second one says the same. Then along comes a Lebanese army intelligence officer and stares at our papers. "OK, you have permission," he declares, and I snap away with my old 36-frame real-film Nikon; the fields, the frontier fence, the high-tech surveillance tower on the horizon. This must be the most photographed border in the world.

Of course, the gentle countryside is an illusion. Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues in the Israeli government have been announcing that the only "army" of Lebanon is the Hizbollah, the Iranian-armed and Syrian-assisted guerrilla force whose bunkers and missiles north of the Litani river might just tip the balance in the next Hizbollah-Israeli war. And Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the chairman of the Hizbollah, has been making some even more interesting threats: that his forces will "change the face of the Middle East region" if there is another war with Israel. No-one is in much doubt about what this means. The newly resurfaced Lebanese roads near the border – courtesy of Hizbollah money – suggest that someone might want to move men at high speed towards the frontier. Perhaps even to cross the border.

That's what the Israelis suspect, too – and it makes sense of Nasrallah's warning last week. The Hizbollah claimed that the 2006 war with Israel was a "divine victory" – it didn't feel that way to us in southern Lebanon at the time – yet even Israel admits it was a near-defeat for its own ill-trained soldiers. But how would Israel react if the Hizbollah managed to enter Israel itself? Israeli army commanders are talking about this in the Israeli press. A fast, dramatic spring across the frontier to the west – in the direction of Naharia, perhaps, or a grab at the settlement of Kiryat Shmona – and Hizbollah would announce it had "liberated" part of historic "Palestine". Israel would have to bomb its own territory to get them out.
...

You can see the way everyone is thinking. And here's the big question, the camel in the room. If Israel ignores Obama and attacks Iran's nuclear sites – a real aggression if ever there could be – the Hizbollah could fire rockets into Israel, perhaps even revealing its new anti-aircraft missile capacity. Hamas might join in from Gaza. Hamas is a tin-pot outfit; the Hizbollah is not. An Israeli attack on Iran will unleash Iranian military power against America. But part of that power is Hizbollah in Lebanon. This is serious business.

Over Christmas, a parcel "from a foreign country" was delivered to three Hamas officials in Beirut and blew up, killing all of them. Last week, a bomb exploded in a building in southern Lebanon owned by two Hizbollah officials, wounding three children. One of them, 11-year-old Diana Zreik, had her left leg amputated. It looks like a glance at the past, to the 1970s, when Israel posted letter-bombs to its enemies in Lebanon.

The United Nations has been complaining at the increase in Israel's overflights of Lebanese territory. The Lebanese army has been opening fire on Israeli aircraft flying over the border – useless, of course, because the Americans don't give the Lebanese army weapons that can hurt Israel – while US Senator John McCain has dropped by in Beirut to complain about the Hizbollah's weapons which, under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, are supposed to be in the hands of the Lebanese army. This is the same resolution that should prevent Israeli overflights.

And what do those overflights show? "We see Hizbollah expanding inside Lebanon and its growing influence, political and otherwise," Barak said last week. "We again wish to make clear to the Lebanese leadership that we see everything, and we will hold the parties which cause increased tension responsible... the situation can quickly deteriorate." Thank you, Israel. Especially if Israel attacks Iran.

/... http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-treelined-bunkers-that-could-change-the-face-of-the-middle-east-1874228.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. If Obama and Clinton do this - it's all over for me. Not Iran. Please. This just can't happen.
Edited on Sun Jan-31-10 12:38 AM by peacetalksforall
I'm sorry, but this is for Israel and if we don't pay attention to the Palestinians there will some maneuver that will put them back decades if not wipe them out.

If we/they touch Iran - it is all over. I will never forgive any of them. I will NOT VOTE if we have a voting system after this act - if that is where we are heading.

I stopped waking up in the morning scared to death to turn on the news to see who we bombed. This is the equivalent of invading the USSR or The People's Republic in the 1950's.

Now, it looks very bad.

I will despise these people - these traitors to humanity if this happens.

How arrogant. How utterly arrogant and ihuman.

So how many dollars and soldiers are coming from the UK, Canada, Australia, and Europe?

Are we going to pay for coalition partners again.

I had a nice day. Now this. Our poor kids who don't know what is going on.

I just can't bear this.. I will never trust again if we do this. How utterly arrogant and inhuman.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alias Dictus Tyrant Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
12. Clue flash
The US weapon systems, as currently engineered and deployed, kill everything from the ground to low earth orbit. There is no "missile defense" or anything like that. The standard deployed weapons are capable of putting up a wall that kills everything. The idea that there is a distinction between missile defense and aircraft defense is a quaint 1980s notion. They are the same systems these days.

Honest to dawg, I am rather annoyed by the breathless, clueless crap that is posted as interesting. It doesn't work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. US raises stakes on Iran by sending in ships and missiles
Source: The Guardian

Pentagon says Patriot shield will deter strike on American allies in the Gulf

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. The entire Middle East"conflict" could br thus contained
"Boots on the ground" are nit needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bc3000 Donating Member (766 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. If only ships in the Persian Gulf weren't just sitting ducks
Just because it's been apparent for years without being addressed does not mean the problem has gone away:

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. deter?
provoke and prepare sounds more likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yava Donating Member (384 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. more military spending
otherwise, what can 100 patior anti-missles do against 1000 incoming missles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GrantDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Sounds like preparation to me.
But what do I know???

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Holy Moly Donating Member (86 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. the glory of war.. again
Edited on Sun Jan-31-10 09:27 PM by Holy Moly
hmmm
The last time we tried this,
Cock W. Cheney was our president.
Like father,
like son.
Like Cock,
like Barak?
Let's pray that Barak
is more competent than the Cock
in starting a
glorious shooting war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. UmmHuh, I will now use my mighty magical predictive
powers to predict that an Iranian civilian airliner will be shot down by U.S Forces with the total loss of all 290 passengers and crew.

Oh Whats this, I can now see a number, A tail number, Why it's, Iran Air Flight 655

Oh Wait .... Never mind :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC